It is well documented that atrial fibrillation, either alone or as a consequence of other cardiac disease, continues to persist as the most common cardiac arrhythmia. According to recent estimates, more than one million people in the U.S. suffer from this common arrhythmia, roughly 0.15% to 1.0% of the population. Moreover, the prevalence of this cardiac disease increases with age, affecting nearly 8% to 17% of those over 60 years of age.
Although atrial fibrillation may occur alone, this arrhythmia often associates with numerous cardiovascular conditions, including congestive heart failure, hypertensive cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarcation, rheumatic heart disease and stroke. Regardless, three separate detrimental sequelae result: (1) a change in the ventricular response, including the onset of an irregular ventricular rhythm and an increase in ventricular rate; (2) detrimental hemodynamic consequences resulting from loss of atroventricular synchrony, decreased ventricular filling time, and possible atrioventricular valve regurgitation; and (3) an increased likelihood of sustaining a thromboembolic event because of loss of effective contraction and atrial stasis of blood in the left atrium.
Atrial arrhythmia may be treated using several methods. Pharmacological treatment of atrial fibrillation, for example, is initially the preferred approach, first to maintain normal sinus rhythm, or secondly to decrease the ventricular response rate. While these medications may reduce the risk of thrombus collecting in the atrial appendages if the atrial fibrillation can be converted to sinus rhythm, this form of treatment is not always effective. Patients with continued atrial fibrillation and only ventricular rate control continue to suffer from irregular heartbeats and from the effects of impaired hemodynamics due to the lack of normal sequential atrioventricular contractions, as well as continue to face a significant risk of thromboembolism.
Other forms of treatment include chemical cardioversion to normal sinus rhythm, electrical cardioversion, and RF catheter ablation of selected areas determined by mapping. In the more recent past, other surgical procedures have been developed for atrial fibrillation, including left atrial isolation, transvenous catheter or cryosurgical ablation of His bundle, and the Corridor procedure, which have effectively eliminated irregular ventricular rhythm. However, these procedures have for the most part failed to restore normal cardiac hemodynamics, or alleviate the patient's vulnerability to thromboembolism because the atria are allowed to continue to fibrillate. Accordingly, a more effective surgical treatment was required to cure medically refractory atrial fibrillation of the heart.
On the basis of electrophysiologic mapping of the atria and identification of macroreentrant circuits, a surgical approach was developed which effectively creates an electrical mace in the atrium (i.e., the MAZE procedure) and precludes the ability of the atria to fibrillate. Briefly, in the procedure commonly referred to as the MAZE m procedure, strategic atrial incisions are performed to prevent atrial reentry and allow sinus impulses to activate the entire atrial myocardium, thereby preserving atrial transport function postoperatively. Since atrial fibrillation is characterized by the presence of multiple macroreentrant circuits that are fleeting in nature and can occur anywhere in the atria, it is prudent to interrupt all of the potential pathways for atrial macroreentrant circuits. These circuits, incidentally, have been identified by intraoperative mapping both experimentally and clinically in patients.
Generally, this procedure includes the excision of both atrial appendages, and the electrical isolation of the pulmonary veins. Further, strategically placed atrial incisions not only interrupt the conduction routes of the most common reentrant circuits, but they also direct the sinus impulse from the sinoatrial node to the atrioventricular node along a specified route. In essence, the entire atrial myocardium, with the exception of the atrial appendages and the pulmonary veins, is electrically activated by providing for multiple blind alleys off the main conduction route between the sinoatrial node to the atrioventricular node. Atrial transport function is thus preserved postoperatively, as generally set forth in the series of articles: Cox, Schuessler, Boineau, Canavan, Cain, Lindsay, Stone, Smith, Corr, Chang, and D′Agostino, Jr., The Surgical Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (pts. 1-4), 101 THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG., 402-426, 569-592 (1991).
While this MAZE III procedure has proven effective in ablating medically refractory atrial fibrillation and associated detrimental sequelae, this operational procedure is traumatic to the patient since substantial incisions are introduced into the interior chambers of the heart. Moreover, using current techniques, many of these procedures require a gross thoracotomy, usually in the form of a median sternotomy, to gain access into the patient's thoracic cavity. A saw or other cutting instrument is used to cut the sternum longitudinally, allowing two opposing halves of the anterior or ventral portion of the rib cage to be spread apart. A large opening into the thoracic cavity is thus created, through which the surgical team may directly visualize and operate upon the heart for the MAZE III procedure. Such a large opening further enables manipulation of surgical instruments and/or removal of excised heart tissue since the surgeon can position his or her hands within the thoracic cavity in close proximity to the exterior of the heart. The patient is then placed on cardiopulmonary bypass to maintain peripheral circulation of oxygenated blood.
Not only is the MAZE III procedure itself traumatic to the patient, but the postoperative pain and extensive recovery time due to the conventional thoracotomy substantially increase trauma and further extend hospital stays. Moreover, such invasive, open-chest procedures significantly increase the risk of complications and the pain associated with sternal incisions. While heart surgery produces beneficial results for many patients, numerous others who might benefit from such surgery are unable or unwilling to undergo the trauma and risks of current techniques.